MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Routing buses impact analysis on the results on modeling standard digital cell on CMOS 28 nm

2023· article· en· W4380610161 on OpenAlexaff
Sergey Il'in, Dmitriy Kopeykin, О.В. Ласточкин, Irina N. Polunina, Dmitriy Shipicin

Bibliographic record

VenueModeling of systems and processes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsMitel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNetlistRouting (electronic design automation)Standard cellStandard deviationSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceSimulationCMOSReal-time computingAlgorithmElectronic engineeringEmbedded systemStatisticsIntegrated circuitEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the influence of routing buses on the timing characteristics (rise/fall time and switching delay) of standard digital elements due to the manifestation of LDE and parasitic effects was studied. A set of specialized test structures to take into account such effects in layers from the first to the fourth metal was proposed. The test structures provide some of the possible cases of the relative position of the routing buses and the layout of the standard cell. Parasitic extraction and characterization of the resulting netlist were performed for each test structure. A set of netlists with parasitic parameters was characterized. It is shown that the average deviation of the temporal characteristics ranged from 1.8 to 3.9% compared to the original structure without routing buses. The largest relative deviation in switching delay is typical for the smallest load capacity, while the relative deviation of cell characteristics depends relatively weakly on the front value. On the basis of the study, recommendations were formulated for modifying the route of extraction of parasitic parameters of standard digital elements, taking into account the routing buses, in order to increase the accuracy of their modeling.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModeling of systems and processesSame topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207